Register a SA Forums Account here!
JOINING THE SA FORUMS WILL REMOVE THIS BIG AD, THE ANNOYING UNDERLINED ADS, AND STUPID INTERSTITIAL ADS!!!

You can: log in, read the tech support FAQ, or request your lost password. This dumb message (and those ads) will appear on every screen until you register! Get rid of this crap by registering your own SA Forums Account and joining roughly 150,000 Goons, for the one-time price of $9.95! We charge money because it costs us money per month for bills, and since we don't believe in showing ads to our users, we try to make the money back through forum registrations.
 
  • Locked thread
les fleurs du mall
Jun 30, 2014

by LadyAmbien
What role, if any, do genitals play in an individual's gender?

Should someone's gender be tied to their genitals, or indeed should their genitals be tied to anything?

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

ZenVulgarity
Oct 9, 2012

I made the hat by transforming my zen

Helps with the breeding thing and works as a convenient marker but people's brains are weird

blainestereo
Jan 16, 2013

It might be argued that your genitals are tied to your gender when you are a kid, by the patriarchal society, so as far as sexuality is concerned a thinking man's first order of business should always be untying his genitals.

LibertyCat
Mar 5, 2016

by WE B Bourgeois
When Facebook lists 70-odd different imaginary genders the entire concept has pretty much become meaningless.

les fleurs du mall
Jun 30, 2014

by LadyAmbien

LibertyCat posted:

When Facebook lists 70-odd different imaginary genders the entire concept has pretty much become meaningless.

some might argue that the usual two are also imaginary, though?

The Larch
Jan 14, 2015

by FactsAreUseless
How are you defining gender?

Queen-Of-Hearts
Mar 17, 2009

"I want to break your heart💔 and give you mine🫀"




Sex isn't the same as gender. Gender is a social construct that includes all of the traits "traditionally" assigned to men, women or non-binary people. So if you were born with a vagina but identify as male and present in a more male fashion, your gender is male.
Mileage of course varies on where one person falls on the gender spectrum. Since gender isn't a hard black and white, nearly everyone has some crossover in gender traits, even if they identify as one or another.

Talmonis
Jun 24, 2012
The fairy of forgiveness has removed your red text.
Only so far as genitalia typically produces large amounts of behavior altering hormones, at least when working "normally".

boner confessor
Apr 25, 2013

by R. Guyovich
yeah, the process which determines your genitals in vitro usually, but not always, sets up hormonal and neurological pathways that conform more or less to a traditional gender. this process is unreliable enough to produce atypical results with enough frequency such that there it is in a free society's interest to recognize gender fluidity

LibertyCat posted:

When Facebook lists 70-odd different imaginary genders the entire concept has pretty much become meaningless.

facebook is a website that has no moral or legal authority on society. you might as well argue that facebook discriminates against pessimists by not having a dislike button

OwlFancier
Aug 22, 2013

Popular Thug Drink posted:

yeah, the process which determines your genitals in vitro usually, but not always, sets up hormonal and neurological pathways that conform more or less to a traditional gender. this process is unreliable enough to produce atypical results with enough frequency such that there it is in a free society's interest to recognize gender fluidity

Well, a traditional sex, I don't think hormones really make you wear dresses, join the army, become a secretary, drive a truck, like flowers, or wear trousers.

Rush Limbo
Sep 5, 2005

its with a full house
I would prefer not to have my genitals tied to anything.

boner confessor
Apr 25, 2013

by R. Guyovich

OwlFancier posted:

Well, a traditional sex, I don't think hormones really make you wear dresses, join the army, become a secretary, drive a truck, like flowers, or wear trousers.

i think it's pretty safe to say there's some kind of inborn gender because humans are sexually dimorphous and we see largely consistent concepts of gender across human societies. it's just that this inborn gender can be disconnected from your biological sex, and the way that gender interacts with society is also complicated, such that ultimately one can't assume a connection between sex and gender

OwlFancier
Aug 22, 2013

Popular Thug Drink posted:

i think it's pretty safe to say there's some kind of inborn gender because humans are sexually dimorphous and we see largely consistent concepts of gender across human societies. it's just that this inborn gender can be disconnected from your biological sex, and the way that gender interacts with society is also complicated, such that ultimately one can't assume a connection between sex and gender

There may be an inborn gender but most of the things associated with the two traditional genders are rather difficult to credibly associate with our biological makeup.

There's nothing biologically that requires men to have short hair and be paid a lot and wear male clothes and like male colours and drive loud and/or fast cars and never show feelings, but those are all aspects of the traditional male gender.

boner confessor
Apr 25, 2013

by R. Guyovich
yes we agree

McAlister
Nov 3, 2002

by exmarx

Popular Thug Drink posted:

i think it's pretty safe to say there's some kind of inborn gender because humans are sexually dimorphous and we see largely consistent concepts of gender across human societies. it's just that this inborn gender can be disconnected from your biological sex, and the way that gender interacts with society is also complicated, such that ultimately one can't assume a connection between sex and gender

Correlation is not causation and even when it is causation can be artificial rather than natural.

Differences, for example, in male vs female math scores between societies and in the same society over a few generations of social change show the power of social pressure over expression of innate abilities.

Studies of difference in aggression by gender in annonymized situations are also enlightening as women are as or more aggressive than men when sheltered from social retaliation. If society treated aggression in men the way it treats aggression in women then men would be less aggressive as the social cost of such displays would be higher.

http://m.psp.sagepub.com/content/20/1/34.abstract

Talmonis
Jun 24, 2012
The fairy of forgiveness has removed your red text.

OwlFancier posted:

There may be an inborn gender but most of the things associated with the two traditional genders are rather difficult to credibly associate with our biological makeup.

There's nothing biologically that requires men to have short hair and be paid a lot and wear male clothes and like male colours and drive loud and/or fast cars and never show feelings, but those are all aspects of the traditional male gender.

These bolded would seem to be covered under the typically high levels of testosterone in males. Short hair, "male" clothes and male colors seem to be entirely socially constructed.

JFairfax
Oct 23, 2008

by FactsAreUseless
pink used to totally not be a girls colour

PT6A
Jan 5, 2006

Public school teachers are callous dictators who won't lift a finger to stop children from peeing in my plane
I don't think male clothes are really that well defined as a category any more. There's just female clothes and unisex clothes, when you get right down to it.

Quorum
Sep 24, 2014

REMIND ME AGAIN HOW THE LITTLE HORSE-SHAPED ONES MOVE?
Considering the number of completely distinct societies we have available is very, very low, it would be pretty tricky to completely disentangle the aspects of gender that are influenced by neurochemistry (and to what degree that influence is determinative) from those which are merely societally influenced. Probably the balance is somewhat more towards societal construction, given the sheer number of silly things we attribute to gender, but there's definitely a physiological aspect in there. But it's fuzzy enough, and the process to derive it is funky enough, that there's no real compelling reason to grant it any real weight. If people feel like being something weird and made up, then whatever brah, what's the point of living in a decadent western hegemon if we can't afford our people the luxurious freedom to self-identify as a gay cactus if they want to?

And of course people with incompatible neurochemistry and/or societal presentation and/or genitals are common enough and sufficiently historically documented that we can pretty well say for certain that this is a problem that appears in all societies and it behooves us to set up ways to deal with it that are supportive and understanding.

Rush Limbo
Sep 5, 2005

its with a full house

Talmonis posted:

These bolded would seem to be covered under the typically high levels of testosterone in males. Short hair, "male" clothes and male colors seem to be entirely socially constructed.

I don't think having high levels of testosterone would make you predisposed to driving loud cars and never showing feelings.

For one thing, cars are a fairly recent invention. Throughout the entirety of human history, cars have been here for about 0.00001% of it.

And as for the second, I'm guessing you've never spent time around young children because boys certainly show feelings, until they're forced to 'man up'.

boner confessor
Apr 25, 2013

by R. Guyovich
regardless of how male/female behavior is expressed, expected, or imposed in any particular society, i think the generally prevalent concept across human societies of there being at least two genders, male and female, sometimes with additional consideration for third or fourth genders indicates that there's something of an internal gender in human psychology

The Dipshit
Dec 21, 2005

by FactsAreUseless

Ddraig posted:

I don't think having high levels of testosterone would make you predisposed to driving loud cars and never showing feelings.

For one thing, cars are a fairly recent invention. Throughout the entirety of human history, cars have been here for about 0.00001% of it.

And as for the second, I'm guessing you've never spent time around young children because boys certainly show feelings, until they're forced to 'man up'.

Presumably the effects of testosterone wouldn't really show up until it is being produced in larger quantities, such as when a boy hits puberty.

Rush Limbo
Sep 5, 2005

its with a full house

Claverjoe posted:

Presumably the effects of testosterone wouldn't really show up until it is being produced in larger quantities, such as when a boy hits puberty.

If Testosterone truly has such a huge effect, wouldn't it manifest earlier? Such as when they're born, given that prenatal hormones determine sexual characteristics.

Who What Now
Sep 10, 2006

by Azathoth

LibertyCat posted:

When Facebook lists 70-odd different imaginary genders the entire concept has pretty much become meaningless.

We always knew Facebook would destroy society, who would have guessed it would be because they added extra options under "gender"?

Talmonis
Jun 24, 2012
The fairy of forgiveness has removed your red text.

Ddraig posted:

I don't think having high levels of testosterone would make you predisposed to driving loud cars and never showing feelings.

For one thing, cars are a fairly recent invention. Throughout the entirety of human history, cars have been here for about 0.00001% of it.

And as for the second, I'm guessing you've never spent time around young children because boys certainly show feelings, until they're forced to 'man up'.

By "loudfast cars and feelings" I'm more speaking of the aggression and intensity, along with a decrease in risk assessment that testosterone brings with it in normal and higher levels.

Anger is the one trait that men are allowed socially, and it corresponds with high levels of testosterone. You're right that others are suppressed socially, much to the detriment to a man/boy's devloping emotional well-being.

double nine
Aug 8, 2013

Ddraig posted:

If Testosterone truly has such a huge effect, wouldn't it manifest earlier? Such as when they're born, given that prenatal hormones determine sexual characteristics.

Really weird stuff starts to happen when some rear end in a top hat pushes this button.


Goodbye sweet innocence, hellooooo boys/girls.

Saladman
Jan 12, 2010

Who What Now posted:

We always knew Facebook would destroy society, who would have guessed it would be because they added extra options under "gender"?

Probably 90%+ of evangelicals?

The Dipshit
Dec 21, 2005

by FactsAreUseless

Ddraig posted:

If Testosterone truly has such a huge effect, wouldn't it manifest earlier? Such as when they're born, given that prenatal hormones determine sexual characteristics.

Testesterone profiles during prenatal development and early childhood are different. General diagram for boys:

Rush Limbo
Sep 5, 2005

its with a full house

Claverjoe posted:

Testesterone profiles during prenatal development and early childhood are different. General diagram for boys:



From that chart, it seems that fetal exposure to testosterone peaks at about the same level as it does in pubescent boys, and with much greater intensity.

If a love of cars and being stoney-faced is linked to testosterone, do these feelings slowly ramp up during puberty? How about the period before puberty where children play with toy cars etc.? How does that lull in testosterone account for that?

cowofwar
Jul 30, 2002

by Athanatos
At a population level, yes, most gender norms are highly correlated with genital configuration.

At the individual level it's all up in the air.

Talmonis
Jun 24, 2012
The fairy of forgiveness has removed your red text.

Ddraig posted:

From that chart, it seems that fetal exposure to testosterone peaks at about the same level as it does in pubescent boys, and with much greater intensity.

If a love of cars and being stoney-faced is linked to testosterone, do these feelings slowly ramp up during puberty? How about the period before puberty where children play with toy cars etc.? How does that lull in testosterone account for that?

You're being simplistic to avoid what's been said to argue further for some reason. Cars are just one of any number of loud, dangerous things that people with high levels of testosterone and low risk avoidance are into. And again, being "stoney-faced" is a social construct, while increased aggression is not (entirely).

OwlFancier
Aug 22, 2013

Talmonis posted:

You're being simplistic to avoid what's been said to argue further for some reason. Cars are just one of any number of loud, dangerous things that people with high levels of testosterone and low risk avoidance are into. And again, being "stoney-faced" is a social construct, while increased aggression is not (entirely).

However, masculinity is not tied solely to loud and dangerous things, there are specific things which are associated with masculine prestige, merely being loud and noisy is not sufficient, which suggests that the behaviour remains heavily socialised. Biology as a basis for gender roles does not stand up to criticism beyond a vague suggestion that maybe some behaviours might somewhere have a basis in something biology related sometimes mumble mumble fart. It's a dumb idea and is not really worth discussing.

Main Paineframe
Oct 27, 2010

Talmonis posted:

You're being simplistic to avoid what's been said to argue further for some reason. Cars are just one of any number of loud, dangerous things that people with high levels of testosterone and low risk avoidance are into. And again, being "stoney-faced" is a social construct, while increased aggression is not (entirely).

Are you sure that the stereotypical "male" affection for loud and potentially dangerous machines, such as power tools, fast cars, and heavily-armed airplanes is due to testosterone and not, you know, a century and a half of social and cultural conditioning? I feel like you're overly inclined to blame things on :biotruths: while ignoring boatloads of cultural context.

Helsing
Aug 23, 2003

DON'T POST IN THE ELECTION THREAD UNLESS YOU :love::love::love: JOE BIDEN
Gender dimorphism and the fairly consistent tendency for men, especially young men, across many different cultures, to be more aggressive, would seem to suggest that beneath all that social conditioning there is at least some relationship between sex and behavior. But we also have a lot of evidence that social conditioning and individual variation play a big role here so it seems dangerous to leap to any simplistic conclusions one way or the other.

Talmonis
Jun 24, 2012
The fairy of forgiveness has removed your red text.

OwlFancier posted:

However, masculinity is not tied solely to loud and dangerous things, there are specific things which are associated with masculine prestige, merely being loud and noisy is not sufficient, which suggests that the behaviour remains heavily socialised. Biology as a basis for gender roles does not stand up to criticism beyond a vague suggestion that maybe some behaviours might somewhere have a basis in something biology related sometimes mumble mumble fart. It's a dumb idea and is not really worth discussing.

It's a good thing then that nobody suggested that masculinity is solely tied to anything.

Biology is a basis only as far as hormones (of which everyone produces varying levels of testosterone and estrogen) effect your behavior. It's not reaching to posit that since aggression is an effect of increased testosterone levels, that someone would make more aggressive choices (specifically, the research pointing to decreased risk aversion). Nobody is suggesting that it's the be all end all, and huffily not discussing it is silly. Hormones are interesting.

Talmonis
Jun 24, 2012
The fairy of forgiveness has removed your red text.

Main Paineframe posted:

Are you sure that the stereotypical "male" affection for loud and potentially dangerous machines, such as power tools, fast cars, and heavily-armed airplanes is due to testosterone and not, you know, a century and a half of social and cultural conditioning? I feel like you're overly inclined to blame things on :biotruths: while ignoring boatloads of cultural context.

Helsing here puts it better than I can.

Helsing posted:

Gender dimorphism and the fairly consistent tendency for men, especially young men, across many different cultures, to be more aggressive, would seem to suggest that beneath all that social conditioning there is at least some relationship between sex and behavior. But we also have a lot of evidence that social conditioning and individual variation play a big role here so it seems dangerous to leap to any simplistic conclusions one way or the other.

McAlister
Nov 3, 2002

by exmarx

Talmonis posted:

These bolded [risk taking and emotional display ] would seem to be covered under the typically high levels of testosterone in males.

I bolder the important word there.

Male children show feelings much more readily but are socialized to stop as they grow older. Suck it. Be a "man" ( with the implication that men don't feel ).

http://www.academia.edu/19569177/Im_Not_Going_to_Be_a_Girl_Masculinity_and_Emotions_in_Boys_Friendships_and_Peer_Groups

Girls of the same age are encouraged to think about and accept their emotions. This is a much better practice IMO and one of the places where we should be treating boys more like girls instead of the other way around. The way we socialize boys stunts their social IQ's and may be why they take so much longer to reach emotional maturity.

As for excitement and risk taking ... Go to google and find the nearest place offering riding lessons to girls that has "vaulting" courses. Then drive down and watch a class.

http://www.abc.net.au/local/videos/2012/08/28/3577345.htm

Or Google wing walkers. Not female wing walkers. Just wing walkers. Since they were predominantly women. Hell, watch this clip of Gladys Ingle repairing a biplane's landing gear in flight. Imagine what the soundtrack would be if she had been a man. But since she is a woman - and we have socially decreed that women aren't risk takers and don't have an enjoyable adrenaline kick from danger like red blooded boys do - we have to downplay the danger instead of celebrating it.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=8oAzdbd0J2A

Back to horses. Horses are a wonderful way to see how social attitudes rather than innate differences between the genders are feeding this myth that testosterone makes people adventurous. When horses were boy things then women were compelled to ride side saddle for decorum and thus limited in terms of access and mobility to horses. The guys hogged them much like they hog the home gaming consoles today limiting girls access to certain gaming platforms. And back then much ado was made about how big and scary and dangerous horses were and how delicate women couldn't be trusted to handle these strong giant beasts!

Now we have cars. And the boys don't dream of owning their own destrier anymore. And horses have become a girl thing. And in barns all over the first world girls and teens and young women are reveling in doing all the trick riding that was once the domain of men. ]And this is far more dangerous than cars. A race car with a gazillion horse power has way more safety features than a mare with just the 1. And my Mazda at 90 doesn't feel as fast as a Tennessee Walker at 30 because you don't have the wind and the motion and the feeling of effort.

And - unlike boys/men - we don't do it to impress the opposite sex. You rarely see a guy in a barn and when you do they are usually lost. I love my husband dearly and he reads this forum ( hi Hun ) but I still get a chuckle out of trying to get him to ride with me and having an 11 year old stable girl step in to get his uncooperative horse in cross ties to saddle up. Girls - not boys - are socialized to want horses now. Horses are now culturally feminized and portrayed as gentle and safe.

But horses haven't changed. And girls haven't changed. Just our societal notions have changed. And an inner city 7 year old girl dreaming of charging through a barrel racing course on the back of a mustang she gentled herself like in the books is expressing the same risk taking adventurism that a 7 year old boy wanting to be a fighter pilot is. The identical basic impulses are channeled in different directions by society.

But if the two the girl is actually far more likely to actually live the dream. As there are more equestrians than fighter pilots running around.

JFairfax
Oct 23, 2008

by FactsAreUseless
I think a lot of people struggling with gender presentation need to discover New Romanticism

Talmonis
Jun 24, 2012
The fairy of forgiveness has removed your red text.

McAlister posted:

I bolder the important word there.

Male children show feelings much more readily but are socialized to stop as they grow older. Suck it. Be a "man" ( with the implication that men don't feel ).

http://www.academia.edu/19569177/Im_Not_Going_to_Be_a_Girl_Masculinity_and_Emotions_in_Boys_Friendships_and_Peer_Groups

Girls of the same age are encouraged to think about and accept their emotions. This is a much better practice IMO and one of the places where we should be treating boys more like girls instead of the other way around. The way we socialize boys stunts their social IQ's and may be why they take so much longer to reach emotional maturity.

As for excitement and risk taking ... Go to google and find the nearest place offering riding lessons to girls that has "vaulting" courses. Then drive down and watch a class.

http://www.abc.net.au/local/videos/2012/08/28/3577345.htm

Or Google wing walkers. Not female wing walkers. Just wing walkers. Since they were predominantly women. Hell, watch this clip of Gladys Ingle repairing a biplane's landing gear in flight. Imagine what the soundtrack would be if she had been a man. But since she is a woman - and we have socially decreed that women aren't risk takers and don't have an enjoyable adrenaline kick from danger like red blooded boys do - we have to downplay the danger instead of celebrating it.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=8oAzdbd0J2A

Back to horses. Horses are a wonderful way to see how social attitudes rather than innate differences between the genders are feeding this myth that testosterone makes people adventurous. When horses were boy things then women were compelled to ride side saddle for decorum and thus limited in terms of access and mobility to horses. The guys hogged them much like they hog the home gaming consoles today limiting girls access to certain gaming platforms. And back then much ado was made about how big and scary and dangerous horses were and how delicate women couldn't be trusted to handle these strong giant beasts!

Now we have cars. And the boys don't dream of owning their own destrier anymore. And horses have become a girl thing. And in barns all over the first world girls and teens and young women are reveling in doing all the trick riding that was once the domain of men. ]And this is far more dangerous than cars. A race car with a gazillion horse power has way more safety features than a mare with just the 1. And my Mazda at 90 doesn't feel as fast as a Tennessee Walker at 30 because you don't have the wind and the motion and the feeling of effort.

And - unlike boys/men - we don't do it to impress the opposite sex. You rarely see a guy in a barn and when you do they are usually lost. I love my husband dearly and he reads this forum ( hi Hun ) but I still get a chuckle out of trying to get him to ride with me and having an 11 year old stable girl step in to get his uncooperative horse in cross ties to saddle up. Girls - not boys - are socialized to want horses now. Horses are now culturally feminized and portrayed as gentle and safe.

But horses haven't changed. And girls haven't changed. Just our societal notions have changed. And an inner city 7 year old girl dreaming of charging through a barrel racing course on the back of a mustang she gentled herself like in the books is expressing the same risk taking adventurism that a 7 year old boy wanting to be a fighter pilot is. The identical basic impulses are channeled in different directions by society.

But if the two the girl is actually far more likely to actually live the dream. As there are more equestrians than fighter pilots running around.

These are excellent points. I would really like to find out if the women and girls drawn to equestrianism and other high risk activities exhibit higher levels of testosterone than the average. One of the interesting things I've come across on the subject of hormones, was that fathers have increased levels of Estrogen. Is the need for more empathy and protectiveness due to the birth of your own child driving that increase?

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

JFairfax
Oct 23, 2008

by FactsAreUseless
Women are drawn to child birth which was for most of human history one of the riskiest activities one could ever engage in.

  • Locked thread